Everyone Entitled To Dress In Red: Democrats

[philw]

Oh Dear, Oh Dear, Oh Dear. Tell me Korn didn't say or do that. Tell me The Nation didn't print that. Tell me TV didn't post this. Now if Buchholz doesn't dig out that tired old photograph of Pol. Col. Thingummy dressed all in red with a "funny" caption my day would not be complete.

Note to Korn: Psst, Blue is a democrat Party colour, Blue is a colour on the national flag. People are entitled to dress in Blue too.

What a complete waste of space.................

As probably the most eloquent of the conjoined Propagate Thaksin People and Destroy Democracy Demonically twisted pair coupling, this is your most useless post. Ever

Sad that you seem unable to realise that criticism of A does not mean support of B.

In this "wonderful" country, where sometimes even the rules of physics do not seem to apply, not everything is black or white, or clearly transparent.

I'm from Liverpool, where again did Dorothy come from ?

[nurofiend]

Does it matter?

The point is double standards of many TV posters are amazing.

Violence versus nonviolence?

I am no yellow shirt but given a choice...

army or no army?

I am no red shirt but given a choice...

if you think pad wouldn't have been more violent if they had the same army aggression against them then you are a fool.

and if you argue that there was no difference in attitude by the army towards each group for each instance, then again, you are a fool.

and if you think the reds would've got the same treatment from the military had they done the exact same thing re the airport, then, well you know the rest.

each group has their violent element, but one group had the military on their side, so there was no need for them to act.

[Buchholz]

ahh.... the ol' chestnut.... "they're equally violent".... "they're both the exact same"

What balderdash that's had all the holes punched into the nonsense countless times in countless threads.

You're reduced to having to try conjure up hypothetical situations that never happened with actual real life situations that actually occurred in such a desperate attempt to show equality and rationalize the Red Shirts overwhelmingly more violent history.

Unfortunately for your attempt, the real events highlight the dissimilarity in the level and frequency of violence.

.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Buchholz

[jellykookabanj]

It's the idiots that rioted wearing red shirts that is the problem. I have ditched all the red t-shirts I owned for fear opf wrong idea being projected. I would niot worry in the slightest if in the UK but here could cause some aggro.

[nurofiend]

ahh.... the ol' chestnut.... "they're equally violent".... "they're both the exact same"

What balderdash that's had all the holes punched into the nonsense countless times in countless threads.

You're reduced to having to try conjure up hypothetical situations that never happened with actual real life situations that actually occurred in such a desperate attempt to show equality and rationalize the Red Shirts overwhelmingly more violent history.

Unfortunately for your attempt, the real events highlight the dissimilarity in the level and frequency of violence.

.

so let's hear you punch holes in what i said and answer the three points i made then, instead of a post that really doesn't say anything at all.

me saying there was a difference in army attitude is not a hypothetical.

c'mon let's hear what you think about each point i made, even if they are hypothetical, go crazy and live a little.

.

[Buchholz]

It's the idiots that rioted wearing red shirts that is the problem. I have ditched all the red t-shirts I owned for fear opf wrong idea being projected. I would not worry in the slightest if in the UK but here could cause some aggro.

Did the violent British Red Shirt ever cause trouble over in the UK after he was deported from here?

Thai demo arrest Briton Jeff Savage is freed

A Kent man filmed apparently inciting Thai protesters to burn down a shopping centre has been freed from jail. Jeff Savage pleaded guilty to breaching an emergency decree imposed to halt anti-government protests and was given three months.

But a Thai judge then halved the term and said he could be freed immediately.

Savage, 48, a former royal porter from Tonbridge, who has lived in Thailand for nine years, is due to be deported within days.

BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10550736

.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

ahh.... the ol' chestnut.... "they're equally violent".... "they're both the exact same"

What balderdash that's had all the holes punched into the nonsense countless times in countless threads.

You're reduced to having to try conjure up hypothetical situations that never happened with actual real life situations that actually occurred in such a desperate attempt to show equality and rationalize the Red Shirts overwhelmingly more violent history.

Unfortunately for your attempt, the real events highlight the dissimilarity in the level and frequency of violence.

.

so let's hear you punch holes in what i said and answer the three points i made then, instead of a post that really doesn't say anything at all.

me saying there was a difference in army attitude is not a hypothetical.

c'mon let's hear what you think about each point i made, even if they are hypothetical, go crazy and live a little.

sorry, as was said, it's already been done numerous times before so not up for another rehash just for the benefit of the latest member to try and bring it up and who has apparently missed all the previous episodes of the same overdone show.

perhaps in the morning, i'll give it yet another go 'round.

..

[nurofiend]

ahh.... the ol' chestnut.... "they're equally violent".... "they're both the exact same"

What balderdash that's had all the holes punched into the nonsense countless times in countless threads.

You're reduced to having to try conjure up hypothetical situations that never happened with actual real life situations that actually occurred in such a desperate attempt to show equality and rationalize the Red Shirts overwhelmingly more violent history.

Unfortunately for your attempt, the real events highlight the dissimilarity in the level and frequency of violence.

.

so let's hear you punch holes in what i said and answer the three points i made then, instead of a post that really doesn't say anything at all.

me saying there was a difference in army attitude is not a hypothetical.

c'mon let's hear what you think about each point i made, even if they are hypothetical, go crazy and live a little.

sorry, as was said, it's already been done numerous times before so not up for another rehash just for the benefit of the latest member to try and bring it up and who has apparently missed all the previous episodes of the same overdone show.

perhaps in the morning, i'll give it yet another go 'round.

..

yeah, thought as much.

people would have to be very stupid to think that the reds would have been treated the same as the pad by the military if they had marched on the airport in the same manner.

i'll leave it at that.

[tlansford]

ahh.... the ol' chestnut.... "they're equally violent".... "they're both the exact same"

What balderdash that's had all the holes punched into the nonsense countless times in countless threads.

You're reduced to having to try conjure up hypothetical situations that never happened with actual real life situations that actually occurred in such a desperate attempt to show equality and rationalize the Red Shirts overwhelmingly more violent history.

Unfortunately for your attempt, the real events highlight the dissimilarity in the level and frequency of violence.

.

so let's hear you punch holes in what i said and answer the three points i made then, instead of a post that really doesn't say anything at all.

me saying there was a difference in army attitude is not a hypothetical.

c'mon let's hear what you think about each point i made, even if they are hypothetical, go crazy and live a little.

sorry, as was said, it's already been done numerous times before so not up for another rehash just for the benefit of the latest member to try and bring it up and who has apparently missed all the previous episodes of the same overdone show.

perhaps in the morning, i'll give it yet another go 'round.

..

yeah, thought as much.

people would have to be very stupid to think that the reds would have been treated the same as the pad by the military if they had marched on the airport in the same manner.

i'll leave it at that.

the myth that the pad were non-violent is also just that, a myth.

But that doesn't stop people from claiming it...

The fact that the violence escalated over time results in the fact that the last conflict was the most violent.

And one of the reasons that it was so violent was due to the decisions of the government, but people here like to blame only one side... no surprise.

Why didn't Korn say everyone has the right to wear yellow, too? Maybe because that would have been as ... intelligent as the statement he already laid...

[ThaiOats]

the myth that the pad were non-violent is also just that, a myth.

But that doesn't stop people from claiming it...

The fact that the violence escalated over time results in the fact that the last conflict was the most violent.

And one of the reasons that it was so violent was due to the decisions of the government, but people here like to blame only one side... no surprise.

Why didn't Korn say everyone has the right to wear yellow, too? Maybe because that would have been as ... intelligent as the statement he already laid...

Think I've heard someone recently pointed out a few hyperbole, so I'd like to do the same.

If the Red-shirts didn't bring any weapons including oil to burn down buildings, the military probably wouldn't have any justification to roll out and counter armed violence.

If the Yellow shirts brought weapons to the airport and burned down some if its towers, then it's highly probable that the military would've applied the same counter measurements.

The thing is, we can't prove any of those situations because they didn't happen. As for Korn not mentioning the Yellow-shirts, I don't believe they're making any radical claims like the Red Shirts are. The Red shirts claim that they are the voice of Thailand, but they're not and that's what Korn is pointing out. Listen to their leaders and rally and you'll find differences.

The PAD pretty much kept out of politics after they achieved their goal of ousting a corrupted PM. They stayed quiet until the ugly rear its head back in... what about the Red Shirts? They stayed in even after they got PTP into the government seat but they're still not satisfied until opposition was 'eradicated' and their Dear Leader comes back and then what? You think they'll just go away quietly?

The PAD were violent yes, but there's a degree of violence and it was much less violent than the Red Shirt protests. For crying out loud the whole city burned!

[Moruya]

Does it matter?

The point is double standards of many TV posters are amazing.

Violence versus nonviolence?

I am no yellow shirt but given a choice...

army or no army?

I am no red shirt but given a choice...

if you think pad wouldn't have been more violent if they had the same army aggression against them then you are a fool.

and if you argue that there was no difference in attitude by the army towards each group for each instance, then again, you are a fool.

and if you think the reds would've got the same treatment from the military had they done the exact same thing re the airport, then, well you know the rest.

each group has their violent element, but one group had the military on their side, so there was no need for them to act.

It's been so long ago since the PAD protests that my memory must be failing me. Can you please remind me of their violence and vitriolic speeches just to set the record straight.

[rubl]

Why didn't Korn say everyone has the right to wear yellow, too? Maybe because that would have been as ... intelligent as the statement he already laid...

I think, k. Korn didn't say "everyone has the right to wear yellow" because for both Democrats and democrats that's so obvious to have no need to say. I'm not telling you you may continue breathing, now do I, that's your unalienable right, n'est pas? He may have felt a need to respond on someone seemingly laying a claim to the 'red color' and linking it to the Flag and implicitely 'us real Thais'.

IMHO

[Moruya]

the myth that the pad were non-violent is also just that, a myth.

But that doesn't stop people from claiming it...

The fact that the violence escalated over time results in the fact that the last conflict was the most violent.

And one of the reasons that it was so violent was due to the decisions of the government, but people here like to blame only one side... no surprise.

Why didn't Korn say everyone has the right to wear yellow, too? Maybe because that would have been as ... intelligent as the statement he already laid...

Your comments about violence are untrue Tom. Pure red fiction.

[rubl]

army or no army?

I am no red shirt but given a choice...

if you think pad wouldn't have been more violent if they had the same army aggression against them then you are a fool.

and if you argue that there was no difference in attitude by the army towards each group for each instance, then again, you are a fool.

and if you think the reds would've got the same treatment from the military had they done the exact same thing re the airport, then, well you know the rest.

each group has their violent element, but one group had the military on their side, so there was no need for them to act.

In a follow-up after member buchholz indicated, 'maybe tomorrow' you said you had three points in this.

"army or no army?"

In relation to what? Sorry, no point

"I am no red shirt but given a choice..."

unfinished sentence, sorry no point

"if you think pad wouldn't have been more violent if they had the same army aggression against them then you are a fool."

No point. Assumption which is difficult to prove or disprove as the situation under which it might have occurred didn't.

"and if you argue that there was no difference in attitude by the army towards each group for each instance, then again, you are a fool."

Mmmh, half point. Would have been a full point if you had left out "for each instance".

"and if you think the reds would've got the same treatment from the military had they done the exact same thing re the airport, then, well you know the rest."

No point. Another assumption/leading question which ignores that at the time the police was in 'full control' and the red-shirts didn't 'do the airport' so no idea what might have happened.

"each group has their violent element, but one group had the military on their side, so there was no need for them to act"

Half point at the most since the army was not 'protesting/fighting' on the PAD side. Furthermore the sentence has the suggestion of 'us poor reds against the army' to justify UDD violence.

Thank you for your attention

[nurofiend]

the myth that the pad were non-violent is also just that, a myth.

But that doesn't stop people from claiming it...

The fact that the violence escalated over time results in the fact that the last conflict was the most violent.

And one of the reasons that it was so violent was due to the decisions of the government, but people here like to blame only one side... no surprise.

Why didn't Korn say everyone has the right to wear yellow, too? Maybe because that would have been as ... intelligent as the statement he already laid...

Think I've heard someone recently pointed out a few hyperbole, so I'd like to do the same.

If the Red-shirts didn't bring any weapons including oil to burn down buildings, the military probably wouldn't have any justification to roll out and counter armed violence.

If the Yellow shirts brought weapons to the airport and burned down some if its towers, then it's highly probable that the military would've applied the same counter measurements.

The thing is, we can't prove any of those situations because they didn't happen. As for Korn not mentioning the Yellow-shirts, I don't believe they're making any radical claims like the Red Shirts are. The Red shirts claim that they are the voice of Thailand, but they're not and that's what Korn is pointing out. Listen to their leaders and rally and you'll find differences.

The PAD pretty much kept out of politics after they achieved their goal of ousting a corrupted PM. They stayed quiet until the ugly rear its head back in... what about the Red Shirts? They stayed in even after they got PTP into the government seat but they're still not satisfied until opposition was 'eradicated' and their Dear Leader comes back and then what? You think they'll just go away quietly?

The PAD were violent yes, but there's a degree of violence and it was much less violent than the Red Shirt protests. For crying out loud the whole city burned!

The PAD were violent yes, but there's a degree of violence and it was much less violent than the Red Shirt protests.

And i suppose the difference in military presence and action had nothing to do with that...

pad leaders also used threats of violent action against the government and police.. they left the military out funnily enough.

it's this black and white 'one group is more violent than the other' stance that i find questionable, both groups have violent elements and their actions have been situational.

there's no question that the results of red protests has resulted in more violence than yellow protests, but you have to look at the differences in the situations and ask the hypotheticals to get a fair viewpoint imo.

[hellodolly]

Does it matter?

The point is double standards of many TV posters are amazing.

Violence versus nonviolence?

I am no yellow shirt but given a choice...

army or no army?

I am no red shirt but given a choice...

if you think pad wouldn't have been more violent if they had the same army aggression against them then you are a fool.

and if you argue that there was no difference in attitude by the army towards each group for each instance, then again, you are a fool.

and if you think the reds would've got the same treatment from the military had they done the exact same thing re the airport, then, well you know the rest.

each group has their violent element, but one group had the military on their side, so there was no need for them to act.

Playing the if game played properly and we could have you being the worlds greatest tenor. What a wonderful game just name it and you can have it if blah blah blah. And you don't even need facts your imagination is the only limits.

[phiphidon]

I guess it matters a lot when YOU are called a cretin. To remind you, 9 other people were called that and worse recently but ti doesn't matter then would it? It's freedom of speech and criticizing in the name of Democracy isn't it?

Take the same value system that you have and apply it to the Red Shirt leaders. I don't expect you to show much disdain for their behavior as long as they're on your "side". Speaking about sides, for every 1 insult from a Democrat, I can show you about 20 from the Red Shirts. Both are wrong I admit, but one just seems to flourish in it.

"I guess it matters a lot when YOU are called a cretin. To remind you, 9 other people were called that and worse recently but ti doesn't matter then would it? It's freedom of speech and criticizing in the name of Democracy isn't it?"

I was writing a post on an internet forum. They were responsible for a constitutional crisis that could have led to clashes on the streets and has led to a rewriting of the powers of the Constitutional Court.

A far, far different order of importance and impact on the Thai political system than my posting on here could ever do. Do you wonder why they are criticised?

Actually yes, I do wonder why they're being criticized. They're being criticized NOW because of their recent verdicts on the whitewashing bills but they were NOT criticized when they ruled in favor of Thaksin and the ruling party. You can't have it both ways: either they're a truly bias system whose judgements should bear no value, or they are a non partisan system that judges according to the rule of law.

The Red shirts seem to put the court judges in the former category and criticize them as such, but again, why were there no criticisms when the court had to rule on the Emergency budget bill?

Replace the word "Red shirts" with "Thai people", and we might actually see a reason for such criticisms. As of now, it's coming from one group's hatred which were spurred on by their leaders.

"You can't have it both ways: either they're a truly bias system whose judgements should bear no value, or they are a non partisan system that judges according to the rule of law."

Black or white, yes or no, on or off, only ever two states of being. People are not like that nor are groups of people and certainly groups of judges are not. They may go strictly by the rules one day and the next they make up their own rules or in the case of the constitutional court their own laws. Ever wonder why there is no rule of precedent in Thai law? If they had that at least there might be some reason for their decisions - it's done on a whim. Normallly have to go through the Attorney General - don't worry about that, to accomodate the amart we'll redefine the wording of laws. That is the point the Judicial system can and will be swayed to suit the status quo. They know they have the power, its been demonstrated, and they will do whatever they can to keep it that way, with the dems hanging on their coat tails.

[firestar]

And i suppose the difference in military presence and action had nothing to do with that...

pad leaders also used threats of violent action against the government and police.. they left the military out funnily enough.

it's this black and white 'one group is more violent than the other' stance that i find questionable, both groups have violent elements and their actions have been situational.

there's no question that the results of red protests has resulted in more violence than yellow protests, but you have to look at the differences in the situations and ask the hypotheticals to get a fair viewpoint imo.

Balanced post is never going to fly around here...

[phiphidon]

Oh Dear, Oh Dear, Oh Dear. Tell me Korn didn't say or do that. Tell me The Nation didn't print that. Tell me TV didn't post this. Now if Buchholz doesn't dig out that tired old photograph of Pol. Col. Thingummy dressed all in red with a "funny" caption my day would not be complete.

Note to Korn: Psst, Blue is a democrat Party colour, Blue is a colour on the national flag. People are entitled to dress in Blue too.

What a complete waste of space.................

Oh dear me.

Did you really post that or did a cretin take control of your body?

See there you go and spoil it all - What is it with you pro democrats, anti reds or whatever that impels you to insult people nearly every time you post?

Now I'm quite willing to bet (if such a thing were allowed) that the majority of insults are from one direction only. I don't know why this is, but we, the small majority on this forum that are red leaning or neutral and questioning tend to be of the polite persuasion but there seems to be a lack of control on the other "side".

extremely funny as the freighter-ship size of deleted posts by you and your ilk are a testament to which side lacks control as the litany of "derogatory, profanity, flaming, baiting, and nonsense posts" as they are referred to when they get deleted.

.

Is that because you keep count or because you report most of them?

[ThaiOats]

the myth that the pad were non-violent is also just that, a myth.

But that doesn't stop people from claiming it...

The fact that the violence escalated over time results in the fact that the last conflict was the most violent.

And one of the reasons that it was so violent was due to the decisions of the government, but people here like to blame only one side... no surprise.

Why didn't Korn say everyone has the right to wear yellow, too? Maybe because that would have been as ... intelligent as the statement he already laid...

Think I've heard someone recently pointed out a few hyperbole, so I'd like to do the same.

If the Red-shirts didn't bring any weapons including oil to burn down buildings, the military probably wouldn't have any justification to roll out and counter armed violence.

If the Yellow shirts brought weapons to the airport and burned down some if its towers, then it's highly probable that the military would've applied the same counter measurements.

The thing is, we can't prove any of those situations because they didn't happen. As for Korn not mentioning the Yellow-shirts, I don't believe they're making any radical claims like the Red Shirts are. The Red shirts claim that they are the voice of Thailand, but they're not and that's what Korn is pointing out. Listen to their leaders and rally and you'll find differences.

The PAD pretty much kept out of politics after they achieved their goal of ousting a corrupted PM. They stayed quiet until the ugly rear its head back in... what about the Red Shirts? They stayed in even after they got PTP into the government seat but they're still not satisfied until opposition was 'eradicated' and their Dear Leader comes back and then what? You think they'll just go away quietly?

The PAD were violent yes, but there's a degree of violence and it was much less violent than the Red Shirt protests. For crying out loud the whole city burned!

The PAD were violent yes, but there's a degree of violence and it was much less violent than the Red Shirt protests.

And i suppose the difference in military presence and action had nothing to do with that...

pad leaders also used threats of violent action against the government and police.. they left the military out funnily enough.

it's this black and white 'one group is more violent than the other' stance that i find questionable, both groups have violent elements and their actions have been situational.

there's no question that the results of red protests has resulted in more violence than yellow protests, but you have to look at the differences in the situations and ask the hypotheticals to get a fair viewpoint imo.

Ok and by your reasoning the hypothetical instances I've given are just as good. It's not really black and white when we're using comparatives since we can sit here all day and try to list all the violence that unfolded. If your views of the Red shirts were all rosy and good then there's no way I can convince you of my views which were the opposite since we have different beliefs.

I'll tell you one thing though... if there was a military coup in which Thaksin wasn't convicted for corruption, filling his key positions with his relative and such, I would definitely not have the same views as I do now.

[nurofiend]

army or no army?

I am no red shirt but given a choice...

if you think pad wouldn't have been more violent if they had the same army aggression against them then you are a fool.

and if you argue that there was no difference in attitude by the army towards each group for each instance, then again, you are a fool.

and if you think the reds would've got the same treatment from the military had they done the exact same thing re the airport, then, well you know the rest.

each group has their violent element, but one group had the military on their side, so there was no need for them to act.

In a follow-up after member buchholz indicated, 'maybe tomorrow' you said you had three points in this.

"army or no army?"

In relation to what? Sorry, no point

"I am no red shirt but given a choice..."

unfinished sentence, sorry no point

"if you think pad wouldn't have been more violent if they had the same army aggression against them then you are a fool."

No point. Assumption which is difficult to prove or disprove as the situation under which it might have occurred didn't.

"and if you argue that there was no difference in attitude by the army towards each group for each instance, then again, you are a fool."

Mmmh, half point. Would have been a full point if you had left out "for each instance".

"and if you think the reds would've got the same treatment from the military had they done the exact same thing re the airport, then, well you know the rest."

No point. Another assumption/leading question which ignores that at the time the police was in 'full control' and the red-shirts didn't 'do the airport' so no idea what might have happened.

"each group has their violent element, but one group had the military on their side, so there was no need for them to act"

Half point at the most since the army was not 'protesting/fighting' on the PAD side. Furthermore the sentence has the suggestion of 'us poor reds against the army' to justify UDD violence.

Thank you for your attention

"army or no army?"

In relation to what? Sorry, no point

there is a point, you just didn't get it.

"I am no red shirt but given a choice..."

unfinished sentence, sorry no point

there is a point, you just didn't get it.

"if you think pad wouldn't have been more violent if they had the same army aggression against them then you are a fool."

No point. Assumption which is difficult to prove or disprove as the situation under which it might have occurred didn't.

no point? no point in having an opinion is that it?

one's own thought is permitted to answer these points.

what do you think?

"and if you argue that there was no difference in attitude by the army towards each group for each instance, then again, you are a fool."

Mmmh, half point. Would have been a full point if you had left out "for each instance".

why? what difference does it make pointing out that they were seperate incidents?

it doesn't take away from the fact that the difference in attitude was based on whether it was pad or udd.

"and if you think the reds would've got the same treatment from the military had they done the exact same thing re the airport, then, well you know the rest."

No point. Another assumption/leading question which ignores that at the time the police was in 'full control' and the red-shirts didn't 'do the airport' so no idea what might have happened.

again rubl, i'm asking for a poster to allow himself to think for himself and form an opinion.

have you got one?

"each group has their violent element, but one group had the military on their side, so there was no need for them to act"

Half point at the most since the army was not 'protesting/fighting' on the PAD side. Furthermore the sentence has the suggestion of 'us poor reds against the army' to justify UDD violence.

now you're just being ridiculous.. as if i meant the army were fighting by their side, you know i didn't, so why bother posting such nonsense.

and no i didn't mean it as a justification for red violence, i meant that "each group has their violent element" ok?

"but one group had the military on their side" as in they stood back from intervening.. ok?

"so there was no need for them to act" as in the violent element within pad didn't have to concern themselves about fighting with the military as they knew they were on their side.

and pad did know the military were on their side (NO not fighting with them)

so answer me this, do you think if the army had the same sympathies towards udd as they did towards pad that there would have been the same violence in 2010?

just your opinion please.

[nurofiend]

Does it matter?

The point is double standards of many TV posters are amazing.

Violence versus nonviolence?

I am no yellow shirt but given a choice...

army or no army?

I am no red shirt but given a choice...

if you think pad wouldn't have been more violent if they had the same army aggression against them then you are a fool.

and if you argue that there was no difference in attitude by the army towards each group for each instance, then again, you are a fool.

and if you think the reds would've got the same treatment from the military had they done the exact same thing re the airport, then, well you know the rest.

each group has their violent element, but one group had the military on their side, so there was no need for them to act.

Playing the if game played properly and we could have you being the worlds greatest tenor. What a wonderful game just name it and you can have it if blah blah blah. And you don't even need facts your imagination is the only limits.

well i'm glad you can make yourself laugh anyway.

that's one person who finds you funny at least.

[phiphidon]

ahh.... the ol' chestnut.... "they're equally violent".... "they're both the exact same"

What balderdash that's had all the holes punched into the nonsense countless times in countless threads.

You're reduced to having to try conjure up hypothetical situations that never happened with actual real life situations that actually occurred in such a desperate attempt to show equality and rationalize the Red Shirts overwhelmingly more violent history.

Unfortunately for your attempt, the real events highlight the dissimilarity in the level and frequency of violence.

.

If you are going to label the red shirt movement as having an " overwhelmingly more violent history." you might want to compare that "history" with the history of the Royal Thai Army and its dealings with Thai civilians and see what happens when the two overlap. Invariably it is the Thai citizens that lose (often their lives).

It is the plain knowledge of what the RTA are capable of that forms my opinion of Abhisit who was also well aware of that capability and propensity for violence but still elected to let loose the dogs of war. As you know I do not rate him highly on the human rights front.

[hellodolly]

Why didn't Korn say everyone has the right to wear yellow, too? Maybe because that would have been as ... intelligent as the statement he already laid...

I think, k. Korn didn't say "everyone has the right to wear yellow" because for both Democrats and democrats that's so obvious to have no need to say. I'm not telling you you may continue breathing, now do I, that's your unalienable right, n'est pas? He may have felt a need to respond on someone seemingly laying a claim to the 'red color' and linking it to the Flag and implicitely 'us real Thais'.

IMHO

When can I wear pink again?

I didn't agree with the yellow shirts I admit I am not the sharpest tool in the shed so I was for the red shirts. Tthat was up until they showed there real intentions and started pouring blood.

They had already made their point in the rally and even for me it was pretty obvious they had no plans what so ever to disassemble peaceably. They became a mob with weapons closing down The business section of Bangkok. Even I knew they were no good at that point.

It boggles my mind how a farong with a western education can condone the whole thing and blame it on the legally elected Government. On the other hand money can by a lot of people. Look at some of the lawyers from the western world Thaksin has bought.

[nurofiend]

Ok and by your reasoning the hypothetical instances I've given are just as good. It's not really black and white when we're using comparatives since we can sit here all day and try to list all the violence that unfolded. If your views of the Red shirts were all rosy and good then there's no way I can convince you of my views which were the opposite since we have different beliefs.

I'll tell you one thing though... if there was a military coup in which Thaksin wasn't convicted for corruption, filling his key positions with his relative and such, I would definitely not have the same views as I do now.

"if your views of the Red shirts were all rosy and good"

well they're not.

"If the Red-shirts didn't bring any weapons including oil to burn down buildings, the military probably wouldn't have any justification to roll out and counter armed violence."

the military were there before any burnings or shooting weren't they? so i guess you think they had no justification when they rolled out!

the red shirts were deemed terrorists before they even arrived too.

"If the Yellow shirts brought weapons to the airport and burned down some if its towers, then it's highly probable that the military would've applied the same counter measurements."

it is yes, but my question was if the red shirts did the exact same thing as pad re the airport, would the military have acted differently...

do you think so?

i think so.

Edited August 3, 2012 by nurofiend

[phiphidon]

the myth that the pad were non-violent is also just that, a myth.

But that doesn't stop people from claiming it...

The fact that the violence escalated over time results in the fact that the last conflict was the most violent.

And one of the reasons that it was so violent was due to the decisions of the government, but people here like to blame only one side... no surprise.

Why didn't Korn say everyone has the right to wear yellow, too? Maybe because that would have been as ... intelligent as the statement he already laid...

Think I've heard someone recently pointed out a few hyperbole, so I'd like to do the same.

If the Red-shirts didn't bring any weapons including oil to burn down buildings, the military probably wouldn't have any justification to roll out and counter armed violence.

If the Yellow shirts brought weapons to the airport and burned down some if its towers, then it's highly probable that the military would've applied the same counter measurements.

The thing is, we can't prove any of those situations because they didn't happen. As for Korn not mentioning the Yellow-shirts, I don't believe they're making any radical claims like the Red Shirts are. The Red shirts claim that they are the voice of Thailand, but they're not and that's what Korn is pointing out. Listen to their leaders and rally and you'll find differences.

The PAD pretty much kept out of politics after they achieved their goal of ousting a corrupted PM. They stayed quiet until the ugly rear its head back in... what about the Red Shirts? They stayed in even after they got PTP into the government seat but they're still not satisfied until opposition was 'eradicated' and their Dear Leader comes back and then what? You think they'll just go away quietly?

The PAD were violent yes, but there's a degree of violence and it was much less violent than the Red Shirt protests. For crying out loud the whole city burned!

For crying out loud the whole city did not burn. This was not Dresden. The propoganda might have worked once but two years later it's recognised for what it is.

[ThaiOats]

Actually yes, I do wonder why they're being criticized. They're being criticized NOW because of their recent verdicts on the whitewashing bills but they were NOT criticized when they ruled in favor of Thaksin and the ruling party. You can't have it both ways: either they're a truly bias system whose judgements should bear no value, or they are a non partisan system that judges according to the rule of law.

The Red shirts seem to put the court judges in the former category and criticize them as such, but again, why were there no criticisms when the court had to rule on the Emergency budget bill?

Replace the word "Red shirts" with "Thai people", and we might actually see a reason for such criticisms. As of now, it's coming from one group's hatred which were spurred on by their leaders.

"You can't have it both ways: either they're a truly bias system whose judgements should bear no value, or they are a non partisan system that judges according to the rule of law."

Black or white, yes or no, on or off, only ever two states of being. People are not like that nor are groups of people and certainly groups of judges are not. They may go strictly by the rules one day and the next they make up their own rules or in the case of the constitutional court their own laws. Ever wonder why there is no rule of precedent in Thai law? If they had that at least there might be some reason for their decisions - it's done on a whim. Normallly have to go through the Attorney General - don't worry about that, to accomodate the amart we'll redefine the wording of laws. That is the point the Judicial system can and will be swayed to suit the status quo. They know they have the power, its been demonstrated, and they will do whatever they can to keep it that way, with the dems hanging on their coat tails.

Since you're already bias against them, then there's no way they can ever be seen positively in your eyes. Even if they were to comply with everything you wanted of them, one bad decision and you'll throw in the "ah ha!.. ammarts". This is the view that most red shirts have now and it's a truly sad state beyond reasoning.

I'd rather not get into another squabble about the CC's decision and their interpretation of the word "and".

[hellodolly]

ahh.... the ol' chestnut.... "they're equally violent".... "they're both the exact same"

What balderdash that's had all the holes punched into the nonsense countless times in countless threads.

You're reduced to having to try conjure up hypothetical situations that never happened with actual real life situations that actually occurred in such a desperate attempt to show equality and rationalize the Red Shirts overwhelmingly more violent history.

Unfortunately for your attempt, the real events highlight the dissimilarity in the level and frequency of violence.

.

If you are going to label the red shirt movement as having an " overwhelmingly more violent history." you might want to compare that "history" with the history of the Royal Thai Army and its dealings with Thai civilians and see what happens when the two overlap. Invariably it is the Thai citizens that lose (often their lives).

It is the plain knowledge of what the RTA are capable of that forms my opinion of Abhisit who was also well aware of that capability and propensity for violence but still elected to let loose the dogs of war. As you know I do not rate him highly on the human rights front.

Being plain knowledge dosen't say much for the red shirts antagonizing them and refusing to vacate the premisses.

I would have said uneducated but I remembered that the red shirts had set up schools to teach them what Democracy was just before they sent them to Bangkok to practice it with guns.

And yes I know they did not all have guns. Like any other war most of the combatants are back in the supply lines or sitting around waiting to go out and replace the few that wee in the front lines. Especially the one hiding behind his kid. At least I think it was his. Hard to say with people who think that way.

[firestar]

On the other hand money can by a lot of people. Look at some of the lawyers from the western world Thaksin has bought.

The fortune of those who back the Democrats dwarf Thaksins, only they are smart enough to use a proxy to do their politics.

(so there is no misunderstanding I am referring to the private sector only)

I admit I am not the sharpest tool in the shed

This we can agree on

Edited August 3, 2012 by firestar

[hellodolly]

Ok and by your reasoning the hypothetical instances I've given are just as good. It's not really black and white when we're using comparatives since we can sit here all day and try to list all the violence that unfolded. If your views of the Red shirts were all rosy and good then there's no way I can convince you of my views which were the opposite since we have different beliefs.

I'll tell you one thing though... if there was a military coup in which Thaksin wasn't convicted for corruption, filling his key positions with his relative and such, I would definitely not have the same views as I do now.

"if your views of the Red shirts were all rosy and good"

well they're not.

"If the Red-shirts didn't bring any weapons including oil to burn down buildings, the military probably wouldn't have any justification to roll out and counter armed violence."

the military were there before any burnings or shooting weren't they? so i guess you think they had no justification when they rolled out!

the red shirts were deemed terrorists before they even arrived too.

"If the Yellow shirts brought weapons to the airport and burned down some if its towers, then it's highly probable that the military would've applied the same counter measurements."

it is yes, but my question was if the red shirts did the exact same thing as pad re the airport, would the military have acted differently...

do you think so?

i think so.

You are over looking (conveniently) that the yellow shirts didn't have to bring any barrels of oil. They had enough aviation fuel on hand to burn the whole airport down. But they had a set of standards a little higher than the red shirts. Well actually a lot higher.